Urban poverty vs. mixed neighborhoods (blog 8)

Urban poverty creates unique situations from mixed neighborhoods.  In neighborhoods that are completely poor, like ghettos, a lot of generational poverty exists.  Mothers have to not only try to make ends meet, but they also have to pay more attention to the environment that threatens their children’s well-being.  There is more illegal activity, more bad influences, and more physical dangers.  Children may not be allowed to play outside because their mother is afraid they could get shot, as Jessica stated in her interview.  After evaluating the interviews in the book it seems that the family system is less able to be as supportive as necessary, either because they don’t live there or because they’re preoccupied trying to make ends meet in their own household.  One other reason is that they’re untrustworthy for various reasons. 

Urban poverty is also more likely to break up the core family structure as well.  Since many males leave the family, are incarcerated or are abusive, mothers are left with the majority or complete child-rearing responsibility.  This not only is undue strain on the mothers and children, it also removes a model family life for children, which may in turn perpetuate through the generations, as does generational poverty. 

Another way urban poverty adds strain to life is that many of the jobs these single mothers can get are outside their neighborhood.  That means that they have to be gone from the household longer and travel further.  This not only takes up valuable time and childcare resources, it is more expensive, especially if they have a car and have to pay for gas. 

Mixed neighborhoods may have poor people in them, but as the name implies, there is more likely to be a stable family structure around them.  In addition to that, it’s less likely to be as dangerous of a neighborhood.  There may be neighbors around who are more trustworthy and able to help out somehow.  They may also be more likely to find work closer to home.  

Childcare instability (blog 7)

The main factor causing instability in childcare is job demands.  Any change in job means a change in childcare, since there is no other parent available to help ease the change for the children.  Julia cited that once she finally obtained a full-time job her only option was to work afternoon to evenings, 2pm-8pm.  This conflicted with Jacqueline’s daycare hours that ended at 6pm.  For this she was able to pay extra money and have an exception made for her with Sonia in order to allow her to work her job.  However, since the public assistance ran out she was no longer able to afford the extended hours and had to quit her job. 

While job demands may be the main cause of childcare instability it by far isn’t the only one.  Many mothers had concerns with the care their children were receiving, or in Julia’s case, the providers not being reimbursed by the agency.  Concern with care happened both with kin care and family childcare.  Julia realized Jacqueline’s father wasn’t doing anything but was eased by the fact that it was only three days a week under his supervision.  Her options for childcare were limited, especially before her full-time position.  Kin care was not always reliable or anything more than temporary.  Her best experience was with her sister who lived with her, but that ended once that sister needed to work more.  One of the mothers, Beth Pierce relies on her 15 year old daughter with cerebal palsy to aid in care.  Part of the afternoon the children are completely unsupervised due to no bridge childcare option. 

As the text pointed out, Juia was only able to progress her job situation upward when she had reliable childcare.  A sick kid can mean the end of a job, so it is very easy to become a vicious cycle between work and childcare instability.  It’s not only the mothers who suffer, but the children as well.  Speech delays are detected later, asthma isn’t always treated properly, and adequate attention to each child is limited in many cases.  

The array of childcare (blog 6)

Child care choices are determined primarily by availability, then by preference.  Brittany, for example, made several switches before she was able to get her preferred option, due to availability of both providers and money.  Some others, like Harriet, were only willing to have family members watch her son Horace, and she was able to make that happen.  Some of the mothers focused on learning activities, others on the health and well-being of aging family members, work schedules of everyone involved, and some (like Brittany) had to find a trustworthy situation before worrying about anything else. 

Concerns about development weren’t specifically about cognitive development, although there were concerns voiced regarding interaction between children and caregivers.  Mothers were concerned if the caregiver didn’t do much with their child.  Brittany had issues with two caregivers—one with payment for time missed, and another for trusting that she was watching her daughter when she said she was.   She cited that she analyzes the provider to make sure their attitude is consistent with enjoying their job and focusing on the care of her daughter with patience.  Lisa found that her mother was reliable but becoming physically unable to keep up with an active toddler.  For many, kin took on child care while the kids were infants and then transferred to family childcare or a childcare center if they could afford it. 

Considering that licensing isn’t required across the board and infrequent checks are made in some states requiring licenses, it compounds the problems that already exist in daycare settings.  These mothers are already stretched to the limit in terms of time and finances, and frequently don’t have access to or know of resources that could help them choose the best options.  This exacerbates the stress that mothers feel when choosing childcare.  At times it may even steer them away from choosing a childcare center over another option.  

Public responsibility to working poor (blog 5)

Mothers interviewed in Chapter 1 of Putting Children First had increasing difficulty paying for living expenses as they worked.  In fact, they were worse off financially after working than before.  Because the state (New York) only has the funds for the most dire of situations, as soon as someone leaves that bracket they are cut off or funds diminished.  The determinants of the various types of assistance don’t appear to be interconnected, either.  To give an example, when Annette (p. 8) started making $100 more per week, her daycare costs went up an extra $23 a week, her rent went up $130 a month, and she was going to lose her food stamp money of $74 per month.  That is an increase of $70.59 per week, which is hardly an increase in income at all.  Healthcare was not mentioned in her response, but if that applies she could be worse off than before. 

In addition to that, they are spending less time with their children due to their rigorous work demands.  This allows children to be more greatly influenced by outside factors and/or people, and weakens the family system.  Because of their lower SES they’re less likely to find quality childcare centers, or quality childcare in general.  This factor alone can contribute to a poorer standard of living, less cognitive development, and more behavioral problems.

People in the videos identified the ‘working poor’ as those who are working but cannot find a way to make a living wage.  An additional video examined generational poverty and mindsets that accompany it.  In that video, it explained that the poor are more likely to produce the poor, which eventually causes a hopeless outlook.  This becomes a public problem, not a personal one.  The financial aids available are intended to help poverty be situational rather than generational, but when they are inadequate they serve no one.  The aids themselves become situational by treating a few symptoms of poverty without reaching the source. The other problem, and possibly the biggest, is the government’s methods for doing things.  The excessive paperwork and time commitment is likely to conflict the most with those who truly need and are trying to work away from it.  In addition to that, the waiting lists that last months to a year are counterproductive.  With these flaws, the country is likely to see more generational working poor needing more assistance than ever.  We may also be likely to see more children in correctional facilities (with high recidivism).  This is a public problem if for no other reason than tax payers foot the bill for all of this.